Disqus - Latest Comments for KomradCal

Re: MSNBC 'Morning Joe' Panel Skewers Sam Stein For HuffPo's Refusal To Cover Donald Trump As A Serious Contender | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:34:35 -0000

Your ubiquitous use of onomatopoeia for laughter really adds to the quality of your posts!

Without that they'd all be devoid of any intelligence whatsoever. Throwing that in as an after "thought" really adds to your credibility! And...it makes you look REALLY smart!

Re: MSNBC 'Morning Joe' Panel Skewers Sam Stein For HuffPo's Refusal To Cover Donald Trump As A Serious Contender | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:30:20 -0000

And yet that's about two full grade levels above the level at which you write.

Re: MSNBC 'Morning Joe' Panel Skewers Sam Stein For HuffPo's Refusal To Cover Donald Trump As A Serious Contender | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:27:50 -0000

Here again, you're displaying your profound ignorance as you lamely and pathetically call the pot black, Kettle. Let me show you how your second sentence should look, okay?

HP is #1. Try not to cry.

See how easy that is? Why then can't a charter member of the "Party of Science" do something so simple? Why would he make such an a$$ out of himself by making so many intellectual mistakes while calling into question the intelligence of the other person?

These kinds of simpleton errors indicate a real lack of formal education. The "Party of Science" must be deeply proud of you and your intellectual prowess. I'm sure your mother is equally proud--and justifiably so!

Re: MSNBC 'Morning Joe' Panel Skewers Sam Stein For HuffPo's Refusal To Cover Donald Trump As A Serious Contender | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:22:21 -0000

What is a paper nimrod, Jerry? Is it like a plastic nimrod or a stainless steel nimrod? How does it differ from other kinds of nimrods, Nimrod?

Re: MSNBC 'Morning Joe' Panel Skewers Sam Stein For HuffPo's Refusal To Cover Donald Trump As A Serious Contender | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:21:08 -0000

If you're going to call others dumb, shouldn't you at least be able to properly punctuate two simple sentences? The fact that you can't makes you look incredibly dumb, moron.

See how I set off the word "moron" by using a comma, moron? You have several other errors in your very short post, but I'm feeling magnanimous today so I'm giving you that one for free.

It's amazing how someone like you, who's semi-literate at best, can so glibly mock others about a perceived lack of intelligence while unknowingly showcasing your own deep level of ignorance.

Re: MSNBC 'Morning Joe' Panel Skewers Sam Stein For HuffPo's Refusal To Cover Donald Trump As A Serious Contender | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:15:57 -0000

"what a moron"

Thaaaaat's Jerry!

Re: MSNBC 'Morning Joe' Panel Skewers Sam Stein For HuffPo's Refusal To Cover Donald Trump As A Serious Contender | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:14:58 -0000

What have you got against snazzy pantsuits and big butts? :-)

Re: Conservatives and Liberals – Telling Right from Wrong | National Review Online

KomradCal — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:19:05 -0000

It would be better to avoid the use of words like right and wrong and replace them with "from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes that one would not kill other people." Right and wrong are moral judgments and without an objective standard one cannot insist something is always right or always wrong.

My contentions are:

1. I don't need God to have objective standards but that exceptions to them must exist.
2. Nearly all who claim to have objective standards based on the Bible make exceptions.

I'm a retired Marine Corps officer. I'm also a secular conservative. I have no issue with capital punishment but only under very narrow circumstances like the case of the Ft. Hood shooter where we have multiple eyewitnesses. Killing an enemy in war is also another very gray area for me.

The Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill." I've heard Prager discuss this on two occasions and he points out how killing means _murder._ For those who claim murder is always wrong, they can't be for capital punishment yet many Christians (at least most fundamentalist Christians) have no objection to it. Some justify it by saying, "Well, governments are ordained by God so killing in the name of the state isn't murder." Then when Muslims exercise capital punishment under Sharia Law, that must not be murder, either, as long as they are the government representing the people. Logically speaking, one can't use executive privilege to make murder killing in one country but consider it murder in another.

I personally oppose abortion because I oppose taking innocent human life. I personally believe life begins not at conception but at attachment as a fertilized egg can life a very long time in a test tube or Petri dish without becoming a human being. But once it begins receiving life-giving nutrients from its mother, it is, in my opinion, a human being. I can't and won't argue that my opinion is just that--an opinion. But for those arguing that one must know God in order to establish morality, I ask them: which God? Once that's answered I ask: which sect of that religion? That's followed with: how do you KNOW this is "true?" Then: what evidence is there for the existence of God that can't be attributed to natural processes? Lastly: if God exists, why are prayers only randomly answered? Why do you accept explanations like "we can't know everything in this life" or something as trite as "God moves in mysterious ways." Isn't it much more likely that things simply happen rather than that Someone is "up there" guiding events and allowing disease, death, and suffering?

These are age-old questions no one has ever settled. We divide up into sides and teams then go at it anvil and tongue. I just posted something on Quora about my skepticism over "climate change." It was very thoughtful and well written. I got blast after blast from "true believers" who were angry as that place where the boogeyman lives. I arm wrestled with liberals on Cagle dot com for four years. Same thing. No one ever convinced anyone else.

I'm conservative except for not believing in God. That distresses many conservatives. Some claim you can't even BE a conservative unless you accept a higher power. C'est la vie and so it goes.

Re: Conservatives and Liberals – Telling Right from Wrong | National Review Online

KomradCal — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:59:41 -0000

Many Jews feel that Democrats in the form of FDR came to their aid during the Holocaust. That slaughter also caused huge numbers of Jews to abandon faith in God. They are still Jewish but they are secular Jews.

Prager himself is Jewish so my sense is he would take umbrage at the wording of your final question. He might say it would be better to ask why didn't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah which is a reasonable question. The fact remains, that for whatever reasons, they did not so it would therefore make perfect sense they wouldn't embrace Christianity.

Re: Hillary Lashes Out At Republicans Over Server Investigation | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:58:38 -0000

"Does this pantsuit make my a$$ look big?"

What does Bill say to Hillary after having sex? "Hey, baby. I'll be home in an hour. Heh-heh."

Re: Hillary Lashes Out At Republicans Over Server Investigation | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:57:00 -0000

The trouble for you, Forest, is I did read your original posts and I responded to them by exposing both of your points as erroneous. The claim about the Bush administration wasn't even acceptable for a discussion among junior high school students. It was so embarrassingly wrong I can't believe 50 people haven't skewered you with it already.

Your other statements were also absurd. Romney was the governor of the state and the public records requirements do NOT apply to the governor. You're either incredibly lazy or just utterly gullible!

Lastly, pointing out perceived hypocrisy is not a defense. "Bush did it, too!" is what those same junior-high school kids would say when caught cheating. "Oh, okay. If Johnny cheated then it's okay if you did. I just didn't know Johnny did that." Except in your silly example, there WASN'T any cheating going on!

And you call other people dumb? Speaking of hypocrisy, Einstein....

Re: Hillary Lashes Out At Republicans Over Server Investigation | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:50:20 -0000

The difference is Romney didn't do anything illegal. The governor's office is EXEMPT from the public records requirement in the state of Massachusetts.

$hit for brains is too lazy to bother looking it up. He mocks others for "blindly believing Faux News" but glibly regurgitates anything he hears or reads from a leftwing source.

And if you bought his claim without checking then shame on you!

Re: Hillary Lashes Out At Republicans Over Server Investigation | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:47:45 -0000

Since when has "pointing out hypocrisy" been a defense for a crime? If you get pulled over for doing 60mph in a 40mph zone, screaming about some guy who passed you doing 90mph isn't a defense.

To continue the analogy... In your case, there wasn't even a driver doing 90mph. The guy you claim to have seen is just someone you HEARD from a third party that CLAIMED he was doing 90mph.

You're not even intellectually worthy of being called disingenuous. You're just Forest Gump stupid.

Re: Hillary Lashes Out At Republicans Over Server Investigation | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:42:26 -0000

I addressed that in my rely to that walking brain stem. Evidently, he thinks simply posting something he read or heard somewhere makes it factually true.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!

Re: Hillary Lashes Out At Republicans Over Server Investigation | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:41:22 -0000

As opposed to two ridiculous and patently false claims like these?

"The Bush administration routinely used private email to conduct
government business. They also conveniently "lost" hundreds of thousands
of emails. Romney destroyed all of his office computers before he left
office as governor of Massachusetts in direct violation of state law."

Pot? Meet kettle.

Re: Hillary Lashes Out At Republicans Over Server Investigation | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:38:28 -0000

It's one thing to get one's facts wrong. It's quite another to intentionally conflate unrelated issues.

ALL administrations use private email to conduct government business. No one is or has ever claimed they don't or that doing so is illegal. The issue here is that Hillary Clinton had Top Secret information on her private server. She wasn't using her computer/email to coordinate guest lists for State dinners.

That you could even try and claim those two things are synonymous makes you out to be either an ignorant buffoon or a partisan hack. Actually, it exposes you as both.

As to Romney, are you actually trying to claim two wrongs make a right? Is THAT your defense of Mrs. Clinton? Really? "Mittens did it, too! Waaahhhhhh!!!!" Seriously?

More importantly, you're simply wrong--again! First, take a look at Massachusetts' public records law. The law, which requires state officials to preserve records for a set amount of time, is fairly clear about electronic records. "The Public Records Law applies to all government records generated, received or maintained electronically, including computer records, electronic mail, video and audiotapes," William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth, wrote in a 2009 guide to the state law.

But the Massachusetts governor’s office is NOT subject to these regulations, according to the state Supreme Court. In 1997, the court issued a ruling that effectively exempts the governor’s office from the public records law's requirements. In the ruling, Ann K. Lambert vs. Executive Director of the Judicial Nominating Council, the court determined that judicial nomination documents submitted to the state's governor are not public because the governor’s office is not "explicitly included" in the state records law.

Do you even make an attempt to think or do you just bang out the first "thought" placed in your head by the likes of "Mother Jones" or "Slate?"

"The Party of Science" sure is lucky to have crack[pot] researchers like you in its midst!

Re: Hillary Lashes Out At Republicans Over Server Investigation | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:20:49 -0000

"Benghazi was a tragedy. Four dedicated public servants lost their
lives,” she added. “And we have to be focused on how to prevent future
tragedies.”

Two things immediately come to mind.

1. We must hold anyone responsible for their deaths accountable
2. We are NOT focused on what happened in order to prevent future tragedies.

President Obama repeatedly told us that Al Qaeda was "on the run" during the 2012 election cycle. That was patently false. Al Qaeda put together a highly coordinated, pre-planned attack at the US consulate in Benghazi on the anniversary of Sept 11th. At least one and possible two FEST teams were ready, willing, and able to go. Someone told them not to. Who issued the stand-down order? Why was it issued? The possibility that help _may_ not have arrived in time is a separate issue. We must know, by name, who told the FEST team(s) to stand down. Further, we were repeatedly lied to about the fact that this was indeed a pre-planned attack. We told numerous times it was a spontaneous protest "gone awry" after Muslims watched a video that offended them. That was also utterly untrue wrt Benghazi. We even spent some $75k to buy apology ads in the Middle East for the video no one saw!

What, if any policy, has been put in place since Benghazi to ensure we don't have any such future incidents? None that I'm aware of. Therefore, NO ONE is "focused on how to prevent" them.

That's all political speak for "I need this issue to go away because it's hurting my chances to get elected." It's Clinton-speak for "I refuse to accept personal responsibility for ANY thing I do."

The same is true wrt her server and emails. It is utterly inconceivable that the US Secretary of State didn't see classified information every day of his or her tenure in that job. A lot of information is automatically classified solely on the basis of the manner in which it is collected. No one at that level could possibly not know that. They would also know that the words "Top Secret" need not be physically stamped on the document or in the header of an electronic document to make them classified.

A very large share of the material the Secretaries of State and Defense see is indeed classified. I can't tell you the breakdown between Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret vs unclassified but it would be a substantial amount even if the majority is unclassified. It is therefore absurd to even suggest the Secretary of State would not have HUGE amounts of classified material on his or her computer/server. That is just inconceivable. He or she couldn't do his or her job without having that material readily available at all times.

We have two covers up involving the same woman and those of us not blinded by liberal ideology know she's hiding information from us. We want access to that information, not more platitudes about a "vast, rightwing conspiracy out to get me." Enough already. Own up to and take responsibility for your actions.

Re: If Hillary's Server Was 'Blank,' Why Did She Keep It? | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:17:13 -0000

Who is this nobody guy? He keeps saying and doing great things. In this case, he seems to have asked something.

For the record, if you don't separate the word "idiot" with a comma, it's YOU who looks like an idiot, idiot.

Re: If Hillary's Server Was 'Blank,' Why Did She Keep It? | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:15:47 -0000

Right! And you just bought some dry land in Florida. Hey, I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. The price is right so call now!

Re: If Hillary's Server Was 'Blank,' Why Did She Keep It? | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:12:50 -0000

I spent my last 10 years on active duty serving as a Russian Foreign Officer leading US nuclear weapons inspections teams into the former Soviet Union under the INF and START treaties. As such, I had a Top Secret clearance and and daily access to Secret material. (We had to drive to the CIA to view TS material and then only if we had access which is completely separate from clearance.)

Had I or anyone who worked for me done ANY of the things Clinton is alleged to have done, we'd have immediately had our clearance revoked and been referred to trial by court martial. That's how serious this is.

As a cabinet secretary--especially defense or state--one has access to the most secret information available to anyone other than the president. It is called "compartmented" information or SCI. It's all Top Secret but it is specially compartmented to ensure no one but very select people with access AND need to know (the third leg in the trio of clearance, access, and need to know.) Hillary Clinton had all three in virtually unlimited areas.

So even if what she saw on her home computer hadn't yet been classified by State, she KNEW with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that what she was reading was SCI material. No one who knows anything about the classification system can arrive at any other conclusion. The only possible exception is someone too ignorant to know and they would never get to that position in the government. Hillary KNEW. She simply chose to ignore the rules because they don't apply to her. They're for the little people like us military officers too stupid to get really good jobs like you know, First Lady.

Her team is trying to kick up a firestorm of dust as it parses words and tries to make the average voter believe that if it wasn't formally stamped Top Secret when she viewed it, it wasn't even classified. That is absolute nonsense. She knows it, I know it, and so does anyone who ever had a Top Secret clearance. In fact, anyone with a Secret clearance should know all of this but it's possible many of them don't.

At any rate, what she did is wrong on every level. One cannot have a private server at home unless it is cleared by the granting agency. Where is her request to do that? Where are the results of the IT professionals from State examining the security protocols at her home? Those would be on file and readily available to congress with a subpoena. They don't exist is where they are.

This was unethical, illegal, and borders on treason considering the very likely possibility China and Russia had full access to her server.

But the Clintons are untouchable and she will likely skate--again.

Re: Carson: Planned Parenthood Aborts Black Babies | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:29:51 -0000

Those who can't brag, nag. They spend there time here taking cheap pot shots at those can put together a cogent thought. They call that intellectualism. Hey, that makes YOU a real intellect, Albert!

Re: Carson: Planned Parenthood Aborts Black Babies | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:28:40 -0000

I'm sure. I'd love to see who's actually winning in every category from IQ to formal education to net worth to fitness to overall satisfaction with life. I'd be shocked if you even came close in one of them.

But you ARE WINNING (ala Charlie Sheen) in one category. You are most definitely a whiny little smart a$$. That's one where you get the trophy hands down. So you at least got that goin' for ya.

Re: Carson: Planned Parenthood Aborts Black Babies | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:26:03 -0000

Ignorant and uniformed. My comments were directed at liberals and Margaret Sanger, you buffoon. My comments about "liberal logic" are spot on as were the things I said about Sanger.

If you'd take the time to read what's written rather than seeing what you want to see, you might avoid making an abject fool out of yourself. Now you're trying to change the subject to save face but you lost that after your first bigoted, hate-filled comment of "Go home teabagger--you're drunk."

You don't like being reminded you started the flame war do you, son?

Re: Carson: Planned Parenthood Aborts Black Babies | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:22:27 -0000

You didn't reply, you ignorant dumba$$. You flamed me. And for the record, the flaming was childish and sophomoric. It was typical junior high nonsense.

I flamed back and you've been whining like a little girl every since. At least TRY being a man and admitting exactly what you did and stop blaming me for returning fire.

Re: Carson: Planned Parenthood Aborts Black Babies | The Daily Caller

KomradCal — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:20:24 -0000

"he has given no real thought to what he has posted...."

Says the guy with the high school diploma to the guy with the BA and the MA. At least YOU put a "a lot of thought" into your thoughtful, intellectual reply! I mean, it's clear that anyone who portrays Margaret Sanger in her actual light must be a "teabagger." Oh, and he also HAS to be drunk.

Yep. Those are some really deeply intellectual comments, Eric. Have you ever heard the term "cause and effect?"